MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A male entertainer who presents himself as a woman is cited as being among those pushing for the removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, also known as the Ten Commandments judge.

As previously reported, Moore was suspended from the bench last week and now faces possible removal after the homosexual advocacy groups Southern Poverty Law Center, People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, and a drag queen who goes by the name Ambrosia Starling, pressed the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) to take action against Moore for his defense of marriage in the state.

“The JIC has chosen to listen to people like Ambrosia Starling, a professed transvestite, and other gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, as well as organizations which support their agenda,” Moore said in a statement on Friday. “We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail.”

According to reports, Starling has participated in and hosted a number of public protests against Moore, including those calling for his removal. He told reporters this past week that he views his drag attire as “armor” to “do battle” for the community.

“As an entertainer, I look at my drag as the armor that I put on to go out and do battle for my community,” Starling said. “I feel like it’s time to put on a public face for my community and get everyone’s attention to what’s important, not only to me but to the community. This is how I do it.”

Moore had mentioned Starling last month in remarking about the complaints that had been lodged to the JIC by homosexual activist groups.

“This person (Starling) and some of the people around her, would have been said to have a mental disorder-gender identity disorder according to the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association,” he said.

Starling characterized Moore as a “bully” on Saturday in speaking with AL.com, which asked him about Moore citing Starling as being among the activists seeking to have him removed.

“Every bully cries hardest when he’s been punched in the nose,” he said.

HISTORY OF THE CASE

Moore

As previously reported, in 2013, two lesbians in the state sued Gov. Robert Bentley, Attorney General Luther Strange and Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis—among others—in an attempt to overturn Alabama’s marriage amendment after one of the women was denied from adopting the other woman’s child.

In January 2015, U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade ruled in favor of the women, prompting Moore to send a memo to probate judges throughout the state, advising that they are not required to issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples as he believed that Grenade’s ruling only applied to the two women.

“[N]othing in the orders of Judge Grenadae requires Alabama probate judges to issue marriage licenses that are illegal in Alabama,” he wrote. “Pursuant to … the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Alabama probate judges are not subject to those orders because the probate judges are not parties or associated with any party in those cases.”

“[T]he injunction and the stay or the lifting thereof can only apply to the sole defendant, the Alabama attorney general,” Moore said. “I urge you to uphold and support the Alabama Constitution and the Constitution of the United States to the best of your ability. So help you God.”

Moore also wrote a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley, urging him to “uphold and support the Alabama Constitution with respect to marriage, both for the welfare of this state and for our posterity.”

“Be advised that I will stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority,” he stated.

“The people of Alabama elected me to uphold our state Constitution, and when I took the oath of office last week, that is what I promised to do,” the governor said. “The people of Alabama voted in a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between man and woman. As governor, I must uphold the Constitution.”

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER FILES COMPLAINT

SPLC President Richard Cohen

But the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) filed a judicial ethics complaint against Moore over his letter to Gov. Bentley, and the homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) submitted 28,000 petition signatures to the JIC calling for Moore’s removal.

As confusion ensued over Moore’s letter to probate judges, one judge, John Enslen of Elmore County, asked the full Alabama Supreme Court for further guidance. In March 2015, six of the nine judges of the Alabama Supreme Court released a historic order halting the issuance of same-sex “marriage” licenses in the state. Moore recused himself from the matter and was not included in the order.

“As it has done for approximately two centuries, Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman,” the 148-page order read. “Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”

In January, Moore sent another letter reinforcing the full court’s order six months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

“Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect,” he wrote on Jan. 6.

But he also noted that his order does not weigh in on how June’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling has impact on the Alabama Supreme Court’s directive, leaving the matter in the hands of the rest of the court.

“I am not at liberty to provide any guidance to Alabama probate judges on the effect of Obergefell on the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court. That issue remains before the entire court, which continues to deliberate on the matter,” Moore wrote.

STARLING’S ‘REMOVE ROY MOORE’ RALLY

Starling

Days after Moore’s issuance of the letter, Starling hosted a “Remove Roy Moore” rally on the steps of the Alabama Supreme Court, where he made judicial complaint forms available to attendees in his push to have Moore removed from the bench. (Rally video posted below report.)

“What I am looking for is 50 people to take the long and laborious time to sit down and fill these complaint forms out, have them notarized in front of a legal notary and have them registered today,” he declared to those gathered.

Starling later led the crowd in a chant of “Sinners hate; God does not,” flanked by Unitarian Universalist clergy, leaders of atheist groups and members of the homosexual activist Human Rights Campaign.

“When we were in Sunday School, they told me Jesus loves all the little children,” he said. “Red and yellow, black and white, gay and straight, day and night—all are precious in His sight.”

“Now if you decide to take it upon yourself to shove hate and discrimination in the mouth of God that is for you to answer for,” Starling told the crowd. “Because the God that I know, the God who guides me, the God who has whispered in my ear and saved me from being attacked … loves all of us.”

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION FILES ETHICS CHARGES FOLLOWING COMPLAINTS

On Friday, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) announced that it had filed ethics charges against Moore as a result of the complaints, and suspended the chief justice while he faces a trial before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.

“The Judicial Inquiry Commission has no authority over the Administrative Orders of the Chief Justice of Alabama or the legal injunction of the Alabama Supreme Court prohibiting probate judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses,” Moore said in a statement.

Moore had been removed from office in 2003 after SPLC co-founder Morris Dees took issue with Moore’s display of the Ten Commandments on the state Supreme Court grounds, arguing that the chief justice “placed this monument here to acknowledge the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men.”

Moore firmly defended his decision to place the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, stating, “Without God there can be no ethics.”

He was reelected as chief justice in 2012.

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Commenting Guidelines: We welcome readers to comment on stories, but we will not tolerate remarks containing profanity, vulgarity, violence, blasphemy, all caps or any discourteous behavior. Thank you for your cooperation in maintaining a respectful public environment where readers can engage in reasonable discussion about matters affecting our nation and our world.Read More →

http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

This has nothing to do with Ambrosia. Moore is suspended for telling state judges to disobey the Supreme Court. He told those same judges that they had a “ministerial duty” not to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The applicable precedents are Marybury v. Madison and Cooper v. Aaron. Moore cannot tell others under his direction to disregard laws that he does not like.

Amos Moses

He is not,,,,,,,,,,,,, he is telling them to obey state law………. and he is correct to do so………..

http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

Amos oy veh? Aside from supremacy there is Marbury v. Madison which has survived as precedent for over 200 years. To top it off there is Cooper v. Aaron. Do they no longer teach at least Marbury in civics class?

Amos Moses

An unlawful ruling……… supreme or not………. carries no requirement to be followed……. see Nuremberg…………

http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

Oh please. Obergefell isn’t exactly a crime against humanity. If you don’t like it there’s a constitutional remedy.

For over 200 years we have accepted the proposition that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution. Now you want to change that because of a ruling that conservative Christians don’t like?

Moore violated ethical standards and he will pay for that lapse in judicial judgment. This isn’t Iran. He’s not the supreme mullah. He doesn’t get to choose which laws he will obey.

Amos Moses

“Oh please. Obergefell isn’t exactly a crime against humanity. ”

Yes. it is…………… and a crime against nature………. if you choose not to believe there is a God………….

“For over 200 years we have accepted the proposition that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution.”

So we should accept that the SC was right about slavery……… as that was its position for nearly 200 years…….. or are they wrong now about slavery………

“Moore violated ethical standards and he will pay for that lapse in judicial judgment.”

Doing the right thing often has a cost…………. so what?…………….

Amos Moses

“If you don’t like it there’s a constitutional remedy.”

Civil disobedience is a remedy………………..

Amos Moses

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
~ Abraham Lincoln

acontraryview

It is not correct to tell people to obey a law that has been ruled unconstitutional. Would it have been right to tell people to obey the law forbidding interracial marriage after the Loving v Virginia ruling?

Amos Moses

So when the court ruled on Dred Scott…….. was it right or wrong………. and should we follow it now or should we not…………… court make rulings…. but they do not rule this country………

acontraryview

I’ll ask again: Would it have been right to tell people to obey the law forbidding interracial marriage after the Loving v Virginia ruling?

Amos Moses

I’ll ask again: So when the court ruled on Dred Scott…….. was it right or wrong…..

And more importantly…….. just because men in a court say something is……… does that make it so…… and are they perfect………. or do they overturn decisions …….. and then do it again ……………….. when are they are wrong …..

Also, Skin is not Sin………… and you are trying to conflate race with DEPRAVITY…….. AGAIN….. and that is RACISM …………. and it is Damned insulting to people of color ………

1857
Dred Scott v. Sandford was a highly controversial case that intensified the national debate over slavery. The case involved Dred Scott, a slave, who was taken from a slave state to a free territory. Scott filed a lawsuit claiming that because he had lived on free soil he was entitled to his freedom. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney disagreed, ruling that blacks were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Taney further inflamed antislavery forces by declaring that Congress had no right to ban slavery from U.S. territories.

So just because a court ruled it……….. IS IT TRUE………..

acontraryview

You’re one question behind, Amos. You answer my question, then I’ll be happy to answer yours.

Amos Moses

No, you do not have an answer ………….. the SC does not always have the correct answer ……. and you know it……… but refuse to admit it………. your “faith” in them is gossamer……

acontraryview

I do have an answer, Amos, and I am happy to provide it as soon as you answer my question. In the time it has taken you to evade answering, you could have easily answered. Why haven’t you?

acontraryview

How you comin’ along there Amos? Any progress on coming up with an answer to my question? Here, I’ll remind you of it: Would it have been right to tell people to obey the law forbidding interracial marriage after the Loving v Virginia ruling?

Amos Moses

“Would it have been right to tell people to obey the law forbidding interracial marriage after the Loving v Virginia ruling?”

It is a red herring……. and as i posted previously ………….

Skin is not Sin………… and you are trying to conflate race with DEPRAVITY…….. AGAIN….. and that is RACISM …………. and it is Damned insulting to people of color ………

1857

Dred Scott v. Sandford was a highly controversial case that intensified the national debate over slavery. The case involved Dred Scott, a slave, who was taken from a slave state to a free territory. Scott filed a lawsuit claiming that because he had lived on free soil he was entitled to his freedom. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney disagreed, ruling that blacks were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Taney further inflamed antislavery forces by declaring that Congress had no right to ban slavery from U.S. territories.

So just because a court ruled it……….. IS IT TRUE………..

Becky

Here we go again with the “interracial” marriage question. With all the time you spend on this site, you should already know the answer to that question. You know it wouldn’t be right. However, it’s not because man’s law says it illegal, it’s because God’s word doesn’t teach that “interracial” marriage is a sin/transgression. God’s law is always first for the believer.

acontraryview

“However, it’s not because man’s law says it illegal, it’s because God’s word doesn’t teach that “interracial” marriage is a sin/transgression.”

Actually, regarding civil marriage it is only about man’s laws and has nothing to do with your belief regarding God’s laws. It is a civil matter. Not a religious one.

Tell me, Becky, as you as adamant about not allowing same-gender civil marriage as you are about making it illegal to divorce except in cases of adultery? Making it illegal to have sexual relations outside of marriage? Making it illegal for a single woman to have a child? Making it illegal to work on Sunday? Making it illegal to drink alcohol (as some Christian sects believe)? Making it illegal to worship a god other than the Christian god?

Those things are all sins, Becky. So if we are going to determine our CIVIL laws based on BIBLICAL teachings, shouldn’t we just trash the Constitution and establish a Christian Theocracy? Is that what you support? Getting rid of our freedom, liberty, and equality? Because you can’t have it both ways, Becky. Either we’re all in or we’re all out. You don’t get to pick and choose. No same-gender civil marriage because of the Bible – then no short hair on women or long hair on men because of the Bible.

So whatcha think Becky? You believe in our constitution and the principles it stands for: Freedom, liberty, and equality? Or would you prefer to chuck all that and make everyone live according to the bible or be jailed if they don’t?

Becky

That’s your opinion, as the non-believer that you are.

Of course, I believe that all should follow God’s laws (according to his word and not the teachings of others). With or without man-made laws, God’s people will always obey him above everyone/thing else first.

Ambrosia Starling…strange looking “duck” even in this small photo of him.

Gal5:22-23

Drag Queen is a costume, like key stone cops or clowns. People dressed as drag queens do it to be outrageous.

bowie1

…also described as a transvestite.

Gal5:22-23

Which is someone who wears the opposite sex’s clothes. Although it can mean for arousal, anyone dressed in drag is technically a ‘transvestite’ though I’m sure the term was used by the Judge for negative demagogue reasons.

Slidellman4life

transvestite=transgender=mental illness

Ronald Carter

On what planet? The one without science?

The Last Trump

You know, Bizarro World.
You’re on it.

Ronald Carter

I don’t live in Bizarro World. I live here on earth, and I like it just
fine. And the things I don’t like I don’t try to use my faith to
enforce on others.

201821208 :)

“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts” 2 Peter 3:3

Hey, I think you forgot to call him “Muffin”. Shouldn’t you be calling all the men “Muffin” like you always do?

acontraryview

That would be planet that he lives on. It’s next to Pluto. It’s called Delusiono

Bertha Warren

Roger Moore, is not the Judge, this drag should worried about. Should worry about the judge Jesus Christ, when stand giving account of his deeds whether good or bad.

Slidellman4life

Roger Moore?

http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

Bond 4?

Bob Johnson

The Saint

Josey

Oh but what did he say, “When we were in Sunday School, they told me Jesus loves all the little children,” he said. “Red and yellow, black and white, gay and straight, day and night—all are precious in His sight.”
“Now if you decide to take it upon yourself to shove hate and discrimination in the mouth of God that is for you to answer for,” Starling told the crowd. “Because the God that I know, the God who guides me, the God who has whispered in my ear and saved me from being attacked … loves all of us.

Of course God loves all of us, He showed His love when He took upon Himself our sins but He hates sin, it brings death to the one who sins, the very truth and fact that God Himself gave such a great sacrifice in sending His only begotten Son who never committed a sin but took upon Himself our ugliness and sins shows how serious He takes the willful rebellion against His word and the willful rejection of such a great sacrifice He made and He is Savior and He is judge. What part of scripture do you drag queen man not understand? Maybe the part where Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more, don’t do that anymore, but the only change comes about when one sees who Christ is and sees the cross and they repent by turning to Christ. The soul that sinneth shall die and the one who rejects such a great sacrifice made by God Himself on the cross and instead lives as he wills and not according to God’s will shall choose eternal hell over eternal life. A choice each individual is given.
John 3:16-19 vs16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is CONDEMNED already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (His Name is Jesus Christ)19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Those who do not believe on Christ are condemned already as it says here in John, God has shown His love for us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly but this man in drag is not obedient to the cross and God hates what he does and what he is promoting for it leads him and others to eternal damnation because they have rejected God’s great gift and disobey His word. Judgement is coming on all the children of disobedience, they have chosen not to believe and have no one to blame but themselves for God is ever ready to forgive and give a new heart to anyone who calls upon the name of Christ and it is that new heart God gives to the one who believes on Christ that is willing to obey Him as sole authority over all which He is and which He alone is worthy of.
Seek the Lord while He may be found, time is so so short, the devil knows it and it’s a shame most do not understand or hear the ticking clock.

Bertha Warren

Thank you.

Chrissy Vee

Amen sister.

Ronald Carter

So of all the people who disagree with Moore’s bigotry, why single out a drag queen? It could easily be an elderly man or young housewife who are not cross dressers.

201821208 :)

gotquestions dot org/laws-land.html

201821208 :)

“Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.”
Matt. 7:21-23

Ronald Carter

There are a lot more people than just drag queens calling for the removal of Roy Moore. Many everyday folks would like to see him out of the picture as well.

The Last Trump

Yeah.
Criminals. And other law breaking, just can’t follow the rules and live civilly with others types. Go figure.

Ronald Carter

Last time I checked it wasn’t a crime to be a homosexual.

201821208 :)

“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22
“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Rom. 1:26-27

gizmo23

So you are for killing gay people as per Leviticus ?

201821208 :)

“Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment” Matthew 5:21.
“Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Galatians 5:21

gotquestions dot org/Old-Testament-violence dot html

gizmo23

No answer

Ronald Carter

I think when you are asked a question you should answer it rather than post vague scripture. Do you support the killing of gay people as per Leviticus?

acontraryview

Please cite which of the people who are calling for the removal of Roy Moore are criminals and law breakers?

Ronald Carter

He won’t. He’ll tap dance around the answer for ages though and manage to be smug about it.

Chrissy Vee

hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa! Thanks! I needed that!

acontraryview

My pleasure. i also find it laughable that he says things he can’t back up. i’m glad you agree.

Chrissy Vee

Please “cite” where you think I was laughing at him. 😀 heeheehee

acontraryview

Well it would be kinda ridiculous to laugh at a question that has gone unanswered. Of course some people do exhibit nervous laughter when they realize that a statement that was made was without merit, as was the case with his statement. So you were either: Laughing at him; laughing with me; or laughing because it’s easier than actually addressing my question.

Regardless of the reason, I’m glad you got a laugh out of it. Laughter is good for the body and soul.

Chrissy Vee

You really did cite. You’re a trooper. And yes, laughter is much better for the soul than the usual superfluous, sometimes vexing debates and comments here. (Mine included.)

Becky

I think you’ve somehow lost the fact that you’re on a Christian site, which means that we who believe homosexuality (and everything to do with it) is a sin against God Almighty are the ones posting here…of course, with a few exceptions…such as yourself. Our beliefs, according to God’s word, is something you cannot understand. Which is why you don’t see homosexuality as a transgression. Why you’re here with your secularism is rather odd really. There’s nothing you can bring to the table of believers.

acontraryview

I think you are unaware that according to them, and I quote, “Thank you for your cooperation in maintaining a respectful public environment where readers can engage in reasonable discussion about matters affecting our nation and our world.”

Nothing about it being a “Christian site” – they specifically refer to it as a “public environment”.

I do understand your beliefs, Becky. Unfortunately, it seems you do not. The Bible makes clear that sexual relations between two people of the same gender is a sin. As far as simply being homosexual, however, I see nothing in the bible about that. Would you be so good as to point out where in the Bible it says that being homosexual, in and of itself, is a sin?

“There’s nothing you can bring to the table of believers.”

Actually, based upon the numerous statements I’ve read regarding the rights provided by our constitution, how our judicial system works, and the basis upon which our country was founded, there is a lot of misunderstanding among some people on this site that I can certainly help clear up.

Becky

Nothing about it being a Christian site?? How ’bout the name of the site itself…Christian News Network. How that attracted you is beyond me. You must think that believers are idiots considering the nonsense you submit, such as your comment about homosexuality.

Chrissy Vee

Yes Trump please “cite”… heeheehee

james blue

“to take action against Moore for his defense of marriage in the state”

Connect With Us:

Learn More

About Christian News Network

Christian News Network provides up-to-date news and information affecting the body of Christ worldwide from an uncompromising Biblical worldview. Our objective is to present the news with the word of God as our lens, and to bring to light what is hid in the darkness. Learn more →